“Czars”

An adviser is not a czar, at least not as the term was used when the nation’s first Secretary of Energy had grouped under his authority numerous formerly-independent executive agencies, or the first Secretary of Education similarly, or the first “Director of National Intelligence,” or “Secretary of Homeland Security” (didn’t they used to call that “defense”?!?!?!).

An adviser has no direct power; a “czar” has LOTS of power.  If you have LOTS of “czars,” that’s a contradiction, because their power is diluted.

Go back to the dictionary, fascists.  “Are advisers unamerican?”  Only if an “American” President is required to be an expert in every area of government or administration!  I used to think they were electing a National Pastor, but now it seems they want to elect a god!!!  Now that’s “godless”!

As for “dictatorial style,” look to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney; as for “secrecy,” look to Cheney’s secret energy policy meetings we’re still trying to get to the bottom of.

Advertisements

Bill Richardson for Secretary of State

He has the personality, the skills, the experience, and respect from friend and foe alike.

Hillary Clinton?  I’m not sure she can work for someone else, especially Obama who beat her for the nomination; I’d trust Bill C. better in this regard.  Furthermore, does Hillary have the personality? skills?  She DOESN’T have the experience.  America’s friends abroad like her, but you don’t make peace with your friends: Do our foes like or respect her?  I don’t know that they do, whereas I do know they like or at least respect Richardson.

Besides, we need our Senate Democrats.  New York’s current Governor is a Dem, but there’s no guarantee NY voters would elect a Democrat to succeed Hillary eventually.  Remember Al D’Amato?  With GOP/corporate hackers stealing elections, and how stung they feel after last week’s losses, let’s not give them the chance.

In this day and age, State is too important a job to treat as a mere political plum, or even an intra-Party olive branch.  And the Senate is also too important to risk: Realistically, we have a year and a half to turn this country around, or get it well on the way.  We can’t expose ourselves – or the nation – or the world – to Republican political games in Congress.

Successful national political parties upset balance of power

Think about it: Technically the Democratic and Republican parties aren’t national parties, but State parties.  The U.S. has no nationally-elected officials; even Presidential Electors are elected State-by-State (which is why the national popular vote total doesn’t matter under the current constitution).  However, because all the State Democratic parties act like a national party, as do all the State Republican parties, the President of the Executive Branch becomes their national leader, subordinating his fellow-partisans in Congress and even, as we’ve seen in recent years, in the Federal Courts and “independent” Federal agencies.

Supposedly it wasn’t supposed to be this way.  The Federalist Papers claim to be incapable of envisioning such a nationwide, multi-region, multi-State “cabal” as a national political party (“faction” was another word they called it; “party” only came into use later), because of the presumed clashes of local and regional interests.  But long ago our elections of Presidential Electors were “nationalized,” relegating “sectional” interests to Congress.  This therefore also subordinates the States, which are supposed to be co-sovereign with the Federal government, and a check on Federal overreaching like we’ve seen so much of in the last 7+ years.

It all goes toward making the President of the Executive Branch the virtual dictator he is today … or can be if he’s allowed to be by those who are supposed to stop him.

What’s the solution?  Bar State parties from jointly endorsing candidates?  Even within States with a semblance of a multi-party system — such as New York, with its Democratic, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, and Right-to-Life parties — you often have cross-endorsement, and sometimes it makes the difference in the outcome — typically Republicans courting also the C and RTL ballot lines, and Democrats the L (though Liberal there means Classical Liberal, not liberal like you’re thinking).

What about going back to actually electing Electors, real persons of weight whom we entrust to pick the best person for the job?  Make the Electoral College a real collegium and not just a party-hack rubber-stamp for one or the other major declared and nominated candidate?

Like the U.S. Senate elected not by the voters but by State legislators — and for many of the same reasons — could it be that the “Framers” were sometimes smarter than I thought?!!!